On 14 Jun 2002, at 1:20, dndsystems1 wrote:
> The exact answer to this is as folows: > > Peter asked D&D Systems if we could wait a week or so for a >delivery from him as he was unable to work (and unable to go to >work) due to very bad influenza. This lasted over a 3 week period >as far as I know. > Peter did not email us very much and I did not press him for work >to be done. He never told us that a very important meeting >regarding the O/S was about to take place in Eindhoven and for a >very good reason, he thought it was another same old thing 'have a chat around a table'. My own strict rules unfortunately prevent me from replying here. (...) > We were never informed about this meeting - Why? 1) The meeting was announced on this list. 2) I, personally, had not heard of D&D system at that time. > Non of our O/S writers were present but it is still ok to make > > > major decisions - why? Because the OS is an OS for all machines. > Nobody was able to represent the latest hardware development >at the meeting but still the meeting was valid - why? Because none of you were there. > The meeting was a non-event for us so we can correct this by >having a proper meeting with the relevant people attending, not a >select few.(...) >Start again from scratch and do it democratically. 1 - Sometimes, I think that I really made a mistake here. Pray tell me, why, in principle, should this be done "democratically"? It only is done so because I THOUGHT that this would be a good idea - but please be reminded that nothing forces TT to do anything "democratic" with his code. 2 - Do you REALLY believe that you will get all of these people to agree on anything just because they are in one room? Before this entire history started, I was totally unaware of the "bad blood" (and that is an understatement!) that exists between various protagonists in the QL scene. Now I have been made aware of it, both privately and publicly (e.g. see Roy Wood's emails on the subject) I just don't beklieve that anything will come out of a discussion. We would be having meetings after meetings, and nothing would come out, because of the fundamental disagreement over the way the sources should be handled. 3 - When I set out the text of the "licence" I asked for comments, and asked, if posible, that comments/criticisms should be couched in a way to include them in the licence. There have been none. Hence my decision to let the licence stand as it is right now, because I want to get the code out amongst you. As I said, I do not see the need for any further meetings on this. However, I will continue to look at all proposals for changes! Wolfgang
